The dispute between the Breitenbrunn Yacht Club (YCBb), the municipality and the Esterhazy Foundation has been enriched by another chapter. Now it’s up to the District Court of Eisenstadt again.
The legal dispute over the seaside resort area in Breitenbrunn, where the yacht club was also based, has been going on for years. The argument came about because the Esterhazy Foundation, as the landowner, wanted to modernize the area and the sailors were then supposed to leave the area. The yacht club, on the other hand, went to court, but ultimately had to vacate the premises. Decision of the Supreme Court Two proceedings have already been completed. The still open deal is about the contracts between the parties. Esterhazy is a landowner and had a contract with the municipality. This in turn had a subcontract with the sailors. The procedure now revolves around the question of whether the latter was a rental or lease agreement. After the instances, the matter ended up in the Supreme Court. He agreed with the yacht club and found that the contract is subject to the provisions of the Tenancy Act and its termination is invalid. Does the municipality have to pay damages? For Walter Bajons, President of the YCBb, the OGH decision means that the contract between the yacht club and the municipality continues is upright. The municipality is therefore fundamentally obliged to make the club premises available to the sailors (which is now difficult to do). According to Bajons, if the municipality does not comply, it would be liable for damages. The club president mentions the 241,000 euros that the sailors had to deposit as security in another procedure. Should the money be handed over to Esterhazy, the municipality would have to reimburse the sum, says Bajons.Proceedings again at first instanceJohannes Zink, lawyer for the municipality, on the other hand, believes that due to the OGH decision the procedure has to start from the beginning for formal reasons. That is why the matter was referred back to the first instance, the Eisenstadt District Court. The municipality is neither obliged to pay damages nor does it have to make an object available. Especially since the question arises as to what damage was caused, since the site should have been cleared in any case. The difference between a rental and lease agreement relates primarily to the notice period. In terms of content, nothing has been decided. After being able to win the previous proceedings and instances, we assume that we will also win here, says Zink.
source site-12